by constantly focusing on that aspect of Mr king you really are blowing it out of proportion. thats not all there is to the man, and you make it sound like he paid Moist with a barrel of piss. it is seems to me that (as vetinari would say) "the offence, if such it be, is largely self-inflicted"

"The reason an author needs to know the rules of grammar isn't so he or she never breaks them, but so the author knows how to break them."

Well, say we accept the premise that there has been an increase it what we shall, for lack of a better word, call "crude humour".

If this is the case, then Mr. P is following in the footsteps of thousands of years of literary tradition. The great Roman writers were obsessed with bodily functions and body parts - check out Catullus and Martial. There are words in Latin for things we don't have words for - if you're over 18, look up "verpus". Then we have Chaucer, Dante, Martin Luther - don't even get me STARTED on Rabelais. The idea of bodily functions being in some way not acceptable material for discussion is very recent. Most writers before Victorian times acknowledged the cruder side of life along with the more refined.

What I'm getting at here is that references to and jokes about excrement or human bodily functions have a long tradition of being more than just a way of getting a cheap laugh. They represent reality, true reality, the down-and-dirty everyday reality that we don't like to think about. Everyone poops - you, me, Jesus, Scarlett Johansson - and every parent will tell you that for the first few years their lives basically revolved around their child's excretory habits. Little Sam's innocent delight in poop is one of the most wonderfully realistic depictions of a little boy I've ever seen.

This is what the character of Harry King is all about - he made his living by people's unwillingness to talk or think about their own waste. He made his living by being frank about reality. He rose to his current heights on a mountain of excrement and a golden river of urine.

And in a sense I think this is what Snuff is all about - the fact that we can't pretend something doesn't exist just because it's ugly, that something isn't necessarily worthless because it's disgusting.

The unggue pots remind me of something that sort of sums up what I'm trying to say - The Caganer, a popular figure in Catalonian nativity scenes. He's just a little man depicted as having a poop, right there in the manger. It's no blasphemy; he represents God becoming man, the divine meeting the flesh, with all the disgusting reality that entails. Unggue pots are like that - the repulsive and the beautiful, co-existing.

So I guess what I'm saying is that there may or may not have been an increase in "toilet humour" in the last few books - I haven't really noticed - but one thing all Terry Pratchett books have in common is that they try to get us to see the truth of things, to see reality, all of it, even the icky bits. Sure, those jokes are there to amuse us (I know they amuse the heck out of me) but I wouldn't say that's all they are.

TL;DR - When is a poop joke not just a poop joke? When Terry Pratchett tells it.

Raisin, it was an example. And to be honest, IMHO it doesn't matter who uses toilet humour for cheap laughs. It's still toilet humour used for cheap laughs. And agree with me or not, I'd say it becomes rather grating especially when Sir Terry does it. Especially when it seems to be there for no other reason than to be there.

I just wanted to say this was a very interesting post, Paranye I do my research on Ancient Greek comedy, where even gods poop, and what you said was quite illuminating about the mechanics of this kind of subversive humour. (In Aristophanes' Frogs, the main character is Dionysus, the god of theatre, in whose honour every play was performed, so you'd think, rightly, he would be especially revered; and yet, he's depicted as a ridiculous buffoon who craps himself when he's frightened. And asks his slave for something to wipe his bottom with. I'm not even going into the other instances of scatological comedy in the other plays, because I'd be here all day)

Small disagreement?I'm getting smacked around the face with the 'fact' that it doesn't matter what you write once you got a certain readership as they'll praise everything you'll do. If it doesn't matter if what you write is a textbook example of beginner's mistakes once you got published, I don't want to write.

And Dotsie:No, I don't, though as you bring it up I can guess. Say, did he say anything about people who instead of judging a person for the person itself rely on generalisation, clichés and prejudice?

LilMaibe wrote:Small disagreement?I'm getting smacked around the face with the 'fact' that it doesn't matter what you write once you got a certain readership as they'll praise everything you'll do. If it doesn't matter if what you write is a textbook example of beginner's mistakes once you got published, I don't want to write.

And Dotsie:No, I don't, though as you bring it up I can guess. Say, did he say anything about people who instead of judging a person for the person itself rely on generalisation, clichés and prejudice?

Amazing how you can add huge assumptions to peoples replies to you here and yet miss a lot of the subtleties obvious to others in the books. Write if you want to write. If its good people will like it and you might be succesful if its bad it probably won't . Simples.From listening to all the numerous arguments you are the only one discouraging yourself in terms of writing. Everyone will agree and disagree on points in books . If we disagree what has that got to do with you as a writer . We're talking about Terry not you. So seriously if you feel the need to write do . See where it brings you . But if it causes you so much pain then don't . This is not an attack its an observation by the way . Don't weigh yourself against the others here and do what you want to do .

'There is no future for e-books, because they are not books. E-books smell like burned fuel.'Ray Bradbury (RIP)

LilMaibe wrote:Small disagreement?I'm getting smacked around the face with the 'fact' that it doesn't matter what you write once you got a certain readership as they'll praise everything you'll do. If it doesn't matter if what you write is a textbook example of beginner's mistakes once you got published, I don't want to write.

And Dotsie:No, I don't, though as you bring it up I can guess. Say, did he say anything about people who instead of judging a person for the person itself rely on generalisation, clichés and prejudice?

You know, what really annoys me. is the small regard you hold for people who don't agree with you. In this post that I've quoted you essentially say that people who disagree with you don't have the intelligence to make their own minds up. You think that people who disagree with you are somehow brainwashed into thinking their favourite author can do no wrong - that we are unable to think for ourselves.

Could you possibly be more insulting?

And you wonder why people here are fed up with listening to your exalted opinions?

What gives you the right to have this god-like opinion that you know better than everybody else? That everybody else here is some sort of sheep just because we don't agree with you?

And that you, who has never (as far as I know) had anything published, know far more about writing than Terry Pratchett, who has.

You also seem to think that you know what goes on between Terry and his publishers, and that these evil publishers are somehow forcing Terry to write books he doesn't want to.

I can't take any of your arguments seriously any more because you just talk nonsense and I'm sick of your whining about the same things over and over and over again.

Tonyblack wrote:And Dotsie:No, I don't, though as you bring it up I can guess. Say, did he say anything about people who instead of judging a person for the person itself rely on generalisation, clichés and prejudice?

Are you talking about me? Do you think I am in some way prejudiced against you?

BTW, I don't know anyone who likes everything that Terry writes. Why should we all agree with you? What are your qualifications?

I thought I was safe from this tired old argument by staying out of the UA threads. Apparently not!

Last edited by Dotsie on Tue Feb 28, 2012 10:31 am, edited 1 time in total.

What's up with this glass? Excuse me? Excuse me? This is my glass? I don't think so. My glass was full! And it was a bigger glass!

LilMaibe wrote:Small disagreement?I'm getting smacked around the face with the 'fact' that it doesn't matter what you write once you got a certain readership as they'll praise everything you'll do. If it doesn't matter if what you write is a textbook example of beginner's mistakes once you got published, I don't want to write.

And Dotsie:No, I don't, though as you bring it up I can guess. Say, did he say anything about people who instead of judging a person for the person itself rely on generalisation, clichés and prejudice?

You know, what really annoys me. is the small regard you hold for people who don't agree with you. In this post that I've quoted you essentially say that people who disagree with you don't have the intelligence to make their own minds up. You think that people who disagree with you are somehow brainwashed into thinking their favourite author can do no wrong - that we are unable to think for ourselves.

Could you possibly be more insulting?

And you wonder why people here are fed up with listening to your exalted opinions?

Sorry to interrupt ont his and keep it goignlonger I just wanted to say that this ^^^ is exactly why I stopped posting. I had started to post more and was enjoying the community but it really put me off. I hope it can all be put to bed and I can enjoy this place again - I miss talking about TP